Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:01:46.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of raw soya bean on in vitro active and passive accumulation by rat small intestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

H. O. Pope ,
J. R. Patten  and
A. L. Lawrence
H. O. Pope
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, The University of Texas Dental Branch, Houston, Texas 77025, USA
J. R. Patten
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, The University of Texas Dental Branch, Houston, Texas 77025, USA
A. L. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Sections of small intestine from rats given raw-soya-bean (RS) diets had a decreased capacity to actively accumulate L-methionine when compared to those taken from rats given heated soya bean (HS), and casein-fed controls. The extent of the reduction was small in comparison with pair-fed animals, but was statistically significant in comparison with rats restricted to the same weight gain as the RS group

2. The differences in the passive uptake of D-mannitol appear to be directly related to differences in gut thickness between the control and RS groups

3. Values for water movement and intestinal transmural potentials further support the results found in the active accumulation studies

4. From this study it was concluded that the degree of starvation directly affects the magnitude of the effect of RS diets when comparisons are made against adequately fed controls.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , March 1975 , pp. 117 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Barnes, R. H., Fiala, G. & Kwong, E. (1962). J. Nutr. 77, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R. H., Fiala, G. & Kwong, E. (1965). J. Nutr. 85, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, A. N., Robbins, D. J., Ribelin, W. E., DeEds, F., Smith, A. K. & Rackis, J. J. (1964). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 116, 1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borchers, R. (1965). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 24, 1494.Google Scholar
Crampton, R. F., Lis, M. T. & Matthews, D. M. (1970). J. Physiol., Lond. 207, 66P.Google Scholar
Davis, P. N., Norris, L. C. & Kratzer, F. H. (1962). J. Nutr. 77, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelstein, S. & Guggenheim, K. (1969). Israel J. med. Sci. 5, 415.Google Scholar
Edmunds, C. J. (1971). Proc. R. Soc. Med. 64, 1023.Google Scholar
Hill, R. B. Jr, Prosper, J., Hirschfield, J. S. & Kern, F. Jr (1968). Expl Mol. Path. 8, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindmarsh, J. T., Kilby, D., Ross, B. & Wiseman, G. (1967). J. Physiol., Lond. 188, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kershaw, T. G., Neame, K. D. & Wiseman, G. (1960). J. Physiol., Lond. 152, 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V. & Chase, H. P. (1971). J. Nutr. 101, 1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwong, E., Barnes, R. H. & Fiala, G. (1962). J. Nutr. 77, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A. L. & Lawrence, D. C. (1967). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 22, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A. L. & Mailman, D. S. (1967). J. Physiol., Lond. 193, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liener, I. E. (1953). J. Nutr. 49, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickelson, O. & Yang, M. A. (1966). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 25, 104.Google Scholar
Miller, D. L. & Schedl, H. P. (1970). Gastroenterology 58, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. R., Ullrey, D. E., Zutaut, C. L., Hoefer, J. A. & Luecke, R. L. (1965). J. Nutr. 85, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackis, J. J. (1965). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 24, 1488.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. H. & Wiseman, G. (1954). J. Physiol., Lond. 123, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar